S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS reference has been made by a earned Single Judge of this Court having egard to the difference of opinion in two iecisions of this Court in Sub-Registrar, kodad Town and Mandal v. Amaranaini China venkat Rao and Writ Petition No. 34859 of 1998, dated 16-12-1998 as also Paramount co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Sirajunnisa Begum.

( 2 ) THE question which arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether n respect of payment of stamp duty under he Indian Stamp Act the date on which an agreement of sale was executed or the date of execution of sale deed which was the subject matter of a suit for specific performance of contract wherein a decree and judgment has been passed, would be the relevant date.

( 3 ) THE petitioners herein had prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari directing the respondents to register the deed of sale presented by the petitioners pursuant to the judgment and decree for specific performance of contract dated 15-12-1993. The duty which was sought to be levied therefor was as was prevailing on the date of execution thereof and not the rate which was prevailing on the date of execution of the agreement of sale.

( 4 ) IT appears that a learned Judge of this court in Sub-Registrar s case (supra) held:"16. From the above judgment it is evident that the Registration Officer while conducting enquiry should concentrate himself whether the consideration mentioned in the instrument of conveyance is true or the instrument was undervalued to avoid stamp duty. It is not his concern to see whether the market value of the property as given in the instrument is proper or correct. That being the legal position in this case, the Registration authorities cannot contend that the value of the property shown in the sale deed is not true consideration that was paid by the respondent to their vendors. As the vendor went back on performing his part of contract, the respondents are forced to approach the court of law by way of filing a suit for specific performance. Because of the cumbersome legal procedures that are vogue in this country, the suit could not be disposed of till 1977 and in the meantime as seen from the record, the vendors seemed to have set up her relative to prevent the execution of the sale deed by getting another suit filed for a permanent injunction by stating that she, the vendor entered into an agreement with him in the year 1976 to sell the land. After the plethora of appeals provided in C. P. C. were exhausted the execution proceedings in the suit filed by respondents could be initiated only in the year 1987. Even thereafter for some time the vendor or her legal representative after her death did not come forward to execute the sale deed. In those circumstances, the court was compelled to register the sale deed in favour of the respondents. From the above factual narration it cannot be said that the sale consideration shown in the sale deed cannot be the true consideration passed on between the parties. When once the consideration paid by the respondents cannot be attacked on any ground, the question of demanding stamp duty on the basis of the market value prevailing on the date of execution of sale deed does not arise. Because of the circumstances that have taken place in this case there is an abnormal delay in execution of sale deed in terms of the agreement of sale and the respondents are in no way responsible for the delay in execution of the sale deed. On the other hand they were fighting the litigation throughout in one Court or the other and ultimately realized the fruits of litigation by 1995. Hence there is no justification on the part of the registering authorities in demanding stamp duty on the basis of the market value prevailing on the date of execution of the sale deed by the court".

( 5 ) IN terms of the aforementioned judgment, a circular memo dated 24-12-1998 was issued directing thus:"therefore, all the Registrars/sub registrars in the State a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document